51³Ô¹Ï

It is not in dispute that the Applicant received notice of the contested decision on 8 May 2023 and that he only sought management evaluation in respect of the contested decision on 2 May 2024, approximately one year later. Since the management evaluation request was submitted outside of the statutory 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c), the application is non-receivable ratione materiae (see, also, Christensen 2013-UNAT-335).

The Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The UNAT first considered the staff member’s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The UNAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the UNAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the UNDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The UNAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant’s attorney’s personal circumstances.

The UNAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan’s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan’s exceptional circumstances—including severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The UNAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by UNRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The UNAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The UNAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant’s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency’s regulations and...

The UNAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the UNAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The UNAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The UNAT held that the Standing Committee of UNJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow’s benefit.

The UNAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the UNAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the UNAT Registry. Nonetheless, the UNAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The UNAT found that, at the time of the late participant’s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The UNAT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the UNAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The UNAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.

The UNAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the UNAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member’s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants’ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants’ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to UNOPS staff members were not made by a UNOPS official with...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.